s: A CFL contains a small amount of mercury (4mg give or take). When improperly disposed of, that 4mgHg can contaminate 5600 gallons of drinking water. That’s huge! On top of that, during a five year life, the emissions from a coal fired plant to produce the energy to run the bulb is an additional 2.4mgHg. Now, contrast that with 10mg of emissions needed to operate a conventional incandescent bulb for that same five years. By these figures the CFL isn’t quite as bad as it’s been made out to be in comparison to the incandescent bulb that most of us typically use. So why should we penalize someone who is trying to use less energy and cause less emissions? Why not add a small tax on those who buy incandescent bulbs to help offset the cost of recycling CFL’s? The first thing we must do regardless of how it’s paid for, is to educate the population to the dangers of improper disposal of mercury. CFL’s are not the worst culprits. The 4mgHg in a fluorescent bulb is small compared to the 500mg found in your typical thermometer or the 3000mg in an old household wall thermostat!
An even better solution to this problem is the LED light. It uses substantially less energy than a CFL to produce the same amount of light and contains no mercury at all. As LED technology increases so does the efficiency of the light output (lm/w). On the same path as the computer chip, the increasing in LED technology is exponential. With the brighter and whiter LED light, its uses are ever expanding. They are not just good for watches and signaling, but everything from LED replacement light bulbs to LED Christmas lights. With their lack of mercury, their low power consumption, and extremely long life, not to mention, a score of other benefits, it seems that the LED ma
y be a solution to a small part of a very big problem.
Leave a Comment
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
